damages on "normal" flights

[Guest captbulldog]

Hi folks,First, PIC's failure modeling is awesome, but I still feel limited. Here's what I mean;With an option of "no failures" in the PIC menu, I/we can fly and be comfortable that nothing (systematically) in this flight can go wrong and can leave the house or take a nap. If any failures are defined, then we will always be alert for very failures.What I wish for is a normal damages option of failures. This way, we "pilots" will have to look after our planes like real pilots do when they fly. With the "no failures" options we can fly abusively and not worry, but with the failures defined we will be looking for that specially defined failure. The mode suggested should be, not completely "random", but more likely to be provoked by something the pilot did wrong.Say I leave the gear level in UP for the whole flight. Normally, the gears will still function and deploy as expected. Instead, the gears should failed because the motors would have burnt out. It should have been in the OFF position.Or flaps stuck when you overspeed,Or engine fire from excessive overpowering. I can leave the engines at 108% all day long, currently. Basically, as I said, it means sure us "pilots" really do look after our planes like real pilots do(unless this has been discussed before? FORGIVE ME! :))Thanks for listening in,

[Guest Martin]

I agree with most of what you said. A few flights ago suddenly my ailerons stopped working, for example. That isn't very realistic, especially since there were no other problems at all.But I assume that programming failures like that is much easier said than done.>Say I leave the gear level in UP for the whole flight. >Normally, the gears will still function and deploy as >expected. Instead, the gears should failed because the >motors would have burnt out. It should have been in the OFF >position.What? What motors?>Or engine fire from excessive overpowering. I can leave the >engines at 108% all day long, currently.Hmm. I thought this was implemented already. I think that if you turn off the EEC and then firewall the throttle for a while, you will see an overheat and/or fire. I'm not sure though, I usually don't abuse my 767 like that. :-)Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Guest captbulldog]

I understand that there are 3 positions for the gear handle, UP, OFF and DOWN. I've read somewhere that when you retract gears you move the handle to UP and when all lights extinguished you have to move it to OFF otherwise the motors and move the gears will burn out.Maybe I was dreaming? :)I turn the EEC off once to experiment and left the throttle to firewall at 108%, but didn't keep it there very long because the KIAS has reached the barberpole so I haven't found out if the engines could overheat and fail :)

[marcom 139]

Yes, the gear lever has 3 positions, but the gear itself is raised and lowered hydraulically. In the UP position, hydraulic pressure will be maintained to the gear system and constantly keeping the gear in the up position. However, once the gear is up, it is also locked mechanically, so no further hydraulic pressure is required to keep it up, thats why there is the OFF position. I haven't heard of the system breaking if its left in the UP position for too long, in fact, on some occasions there were errors in the gear system (I don't know exactly what caused them, either maintenance forgot something or simplly something broke) where the gear would fall down once the pressure was removed. So crews would then keep the gear level in the UP position for the entire flight.Now to the EEC:Once you firewall the engines and turn off EEC, the thrust will stay at the current position as the EEC (in PIC) actively retards the thrust levers not to exceed max N1. To overrev the engines, you'd have to turn off both EEC's and then firewall the thrust levers. N1 will be then around 117%If you keep it too long there, you'll get an engine fire.Regards,Mark

[Guest]

HiReally? engine fire in 2k2? I have engine damage enabled and I over-revved the engines for several minutes around VHHH to see what would happen....nothing.Odd...Brgds//Neil

[Guest]

On my way into HNL today on VATSIM descending with the MAGGI3 the TAT began to increase until around 116'C. This caused left and right engine fires.

[Guest GrahamB]

Hi Ryan,Sounds like fun. ;-) This is off the topic, but...Just curious, do you use FS Meteo with the high resolution FDs? I flew into HNL from SFO last week with them enabled and the wind was much higher than the computer flight plan I had run for the flights ETD. For example (probably not formatted): [F] BAKON F380 CFP Sector WV and SAT ACTUAL 230/22 M53 260/79 M54 BILLO F380 260/14 M57 220/40 M55 [/F]Also FS Meteo high res winds didn't come close to the WX maps either. (Which, not a surprisingly, agreed with the plan.) I just checked the route for today, and SFO-HNL via R464 has a H/W component of only 21 knots.So if you were using them, what kind of winds were you getting out over the CEP if you can recall?Cheers,Graham

[Guest]

Hi AllI tried it again....parking brakes on, N1 at 120% for 10 minutes and all it did was go around in a nice circle. No fires, no overheats, no warnings, nothing. Other failures work...I set all minors to 10/hour and engines on all failures 10/hour and flew Hong Kong - Macau. Lost left electrical, right hydraulic, left bleed air leak, flaps stuck on 15deg, no gear...Belly-landed on the grass without a crash - alternate gear didn't work either. Nice replay but after exiting it...The gear mysteriously was in full agreement! Taxied away like nothing had happened.Anyone else have mysterious behaviour like this in 2k2? Does enabling failures in PIC somehow disable the generic MS crash detection? Or was my 100ft/min landing enough?Best regards//Neil

[michal 44]

I agree 100%. It would be much better to have pilot-made failures implemented rather than "random" failures.Michael J.

[Guest]

Hi Graham,Yes I am using FSMETEO. I don't recall the winds from yesterdays flight but I just finished the return flight. (MKK4 EBBER R577 ELKEY SADDE6) The winds on FSMETEO were pretty accurate. Although I have also had a few occurances while on VATSIM where the winds were completely off but in most cases I don't think it is an FSMETEO problem ;-)Ryan

[Guest Martin]

I think you can thank yourself for your belly landing. :-) You would have crashed if you hit hard...About the landing gear, it sounds like the replay did something to it.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Guest captbulldog]

>So crews would then keep the gear level in the UP position for the entire flight.So it sounds like UP is more safe as it makes sure the gears stay UP, but that leaves me to ask why then is there an OFF position?

[marcom 139]

UP is only used if the locking mechanism of the gear doors fail to prevent the gear from falling down. If the locking mechanism works, the gear will stay up, even in the OFF position.I would imagine UP is not used all the time because the gear system would then be kept under hydraulic pressure and if a leak would occur, hydraulic fluid could escape via the gear system. The central hydraulic system on the 767 is the main hydraulic system, so its important to make it as reliable as possible - shut off those systems that are not needed in flight to relieve hydraulic pressure in the valves.

[Guest captbulldog]

Cool. That still backs up my point with having pilot provoked failures. If the pilot (us) had left the gear in UP the whole flight (like I did) then we should see somesort of system mulfunction or gear failure. Apparently that's not model. The only way to get failures is through the failure menu.